How to Defeat Weaponized Empathy

I’ve spoken at great length on the matter of Weaponized Empathy. It is the primary weapon of the modern Left. Indeed, it so completely dominates their tactical thinking that everything else in their arsenal pales in comparison. Defeating this weapon ought to be the foremost on the mind of any opponent of the Progressive Left.

Almost nothing else matters, at this point. Any victory achieved without defeating Weaponized Empathy will be hollow and Pyrrhic. You may succeed in lowering taxes for a time, or passing some military budget items you want. But the Progressive steamroller will go on, slowly, inexorably, swallowing entire civilizations in the old Fabian manner. The war will be lost unless the weapon is destroyed.

What is Weaponized Empathy? It is the deliberate hijacking of your own moral standards, your ability to empathize with your fellow man, in order to force you to serve someone else’s narrative. It is, in essence, a highly sophisticated form of guilt-tripping designed to turn you into a slave.

You might consider it an evolution of the Alinsky tactic of forcing the enemy to live up to their own moral standards. But it goes beyond that. It forces an enemy to embrace your moral standards or suffer tremendous peer pressure and socially-engineered “justice” at the whims of the mob.

Here is a practical example:

No, no… the position of the dead child’s body is all wrong. For maximum propaganda value, it needs to be over there…

The idea, of course, is to manipulate you into supporting certain Progressive policies by showing you the picture of a dead child, carefully positioned to elicit maximum sympathy. It’s like the TV commercials showing starving African children, covered in maggots and flies. I’ve no doubt that the cameraman deliberately engineers the scene for maximum effect.

Donate or else you’re a bad person who hates the starving Africans. Support Syrian refugee resettlement in your country, or else you support dead children.

The tactic is used for everything from welfare policy, to Social Security disbursement, to immigration and even climate change. Support climate change legislation, or else you want the poor residents of some tropical island to drown. Support Black Lives Matter or else you’re a racist who hates black people.

Meanwhile, of course, they’ll show pictures designed to elicit maximum sympathy for one person, and maximize anger toward another. We all remember this case:

Make sure to pick the picture of Trayvon as a child, not a teenager flicking off the camera, for maximum narrative spin.

And so those who most easily succumb to peer pressure are quickly convinced to become rabid Progressives, because it’s intellectually easier to say “oh, I’m helping” regardless of whether or not you’re actually doing anything constructive. It’s easier to be seen supporting the poor, innocent child over the mean-looking white guy. It takes no particular courage to take the position the media talking heads tell you to, for if anything goes wrong with the narrative, you can always say “well, I was just trying to help.”

Weaponized Empathy is everywhere. Healthcare policy is not judged on how efficient it is, or the quality of care provided, or even the cost of that care. It is judged solely on how it helps the poor. If it cost a million dollars per person, per year, but the poor didn’t have to pay the bill, Progressives would deem it great success. Non-Progressives would be pointing out that it’s expensive, the quality of the product was poor, and it was bankrupting the country. The response from the Progressives would be simple. They would pull out a picture of a child on Obamacare, or whatever government program they were promoting.

The picture would be carefully staged for maximum empathy. Perhaps the child would be crying, his face down, covered in carefully-enhanced sores. Maybe photoshop in a little blood and grime. Turn down the lighting a little, just so.

Now, if you oppose Obamacare, you want this poor child to die of plague.

Weaponized Empathy isn’t just employed to win easy converts, however. It is also used to mobilize the converted against the unconverted. To use threat of force, of financial ruin, and peer pressure (even within families) to silence the unconverted. To make them afraid to speak. It can even make it permissible to commit violent acts against you.

Everyone has that one relative who guilt trips everyone else in the family. If you don’t do something he wants, you must want him to suffer. A false choice is presented, either obey or you’re a bad person. No other choices are presented.

The key to defeating Weaponized Empathy in yourself is understanding that more choices exist than are presented by the wielder of the weapon. Opposing Obamacare may, for instance, mean you want healthcare to be better for everyone. Saying no to a guilt-tripping relative may be because he is guilt-tripping you, instead of asking for your help with no such strings attached. You may be helping him to become a better person by not allowing him to blatantly manipulate you. Or you could just say “you’re being an asshole.” That can be remarkably effective (and true), also.

But this, of course, does no good on the world stage. The Right-wing has been replying to this weapon with logic and reason for decades, and it never works. The Left almost always succeeds in sculpting the narrative against them. Pictures of poor, bloodied children will circulate on Facebook, and the only alternative to being racist scum is to admit as many people into the country as the Progressive leaders want.

The answer is to call them out on the lies. To rigorously tear apart their stories. When the picture looks staged, it probably is staged. Point out that the folks manipulating the bodies of dead children for political gain are assholes. When there is a shooting, and the media posts a picture of a darling little child to try and steer blame away from the perp, find and post the picture of the fully-grown thug flipping off the camera. Then call the propagandists lying assholes. After all, what kind of dickhead puts a deliberate, calculated political angle on a tragic death?

Forget what they want you to do. It doesn’t matter what they want, if they are being lying assholes. You don’t need to consider the opinions of liars. What does it matter if they want you to bring in 100,000 Syrians? They are dishonest scum, using cynically-manipulated pictures of dead kids to do it. Their opinions can be dismissed without moral reservation because of this. Say so, openly, and without fear.

You have the moral high ground, because you’re not a cynical, lying, asshole.

You may have empathy, and may wish to do right by other folks. That is a fine and good thing. A noble trait. But never allow yourself to be manipulated and deceived into doing a liar’s bidding. That isn’t doing anybody any good, except the liar. And that’s the end of it. Charity is supposed to start with truth, not lies. Repeat it like a mantra, until the Progressives understand that you cannot be guilt-tripped by dishonesty.

134 Comments

I’ll one-up you on this.
SJW comes up to you and asks “Do you support helping immigrating syrian refugees?”
You answer “Helllll, no!”
He/She/It shows you the dead kid on the beach pic and sez “You’re a baby killing SCUM!”

RESPONSE:
“YOU are the one who wants to bring them here, force them to live in dirty, hopeless ghettoes to turn them into VOTE SLAVES! You lured them with FALSE HOPES to a PRISON. Are you proud now that you know you lured that poor kid to his death?” And say this with a laugh.

When I saw Rachael Jeantel testify in the Zimmerman trial, I coined the term “ghettopotamus”.

Anyway, given how the left tries to demonize people for “white privilege”, my inclination would be to respond with something like “Yes, my ancestors benefited from advantages in intelligence and drive, and perhaps they exploited lesser peoples, even oppressing or killing many along the way. But let me tell you, even though my status and success may be do in part to carrying the genes of winners, and even though you are burdened with loser genes, I feel it’s my duty to make sure your loser ancestors weren’t oppressed in vain. If I don’t exploit my privileged position then all that oppression would have been for nothing. If you insist on carrying on your family tradition of being a loser, go right ahead, but I’m going to continue with being a winner. It’s evolution. It’s fate. Just accept it.”

The thing about weaponized empathy is that if it fails to elicit sympathy, it can fail spectacularly. They may call you a monster, but my reply would be “Yes. Yes I am. Bwuhahahaha!!!!!” Of course that wouldn’t be a good course of action for someone seeking political office, but it might provide a push back against college social justice warriors. Their fundamental position is that they are losers from many generations of losers. Making them try to own that might shift their thinking.

Exensive electricity generated by alternative sources is already costing people their jobs and forcing people into energy poverty. Alternatives are truly a crime against humanity. Progressives who support that are complicit.

Current example: oh poor non-citizen translator detained at entry to the US. But compare that with the millions of Americans “detained” at airports absent any reasonable suspicion that they are terrorists or engaged in criminal activity every single day. How about elderly men with colostomy bags or women with implants after cancer surgery? How about children’s teddy bears or children with disabilities “detained” away from their mothers while they are accosted by the TSA for “national security”. All without the “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” absolutely required before the government can detain you even in a limited manner to conduct an investigation. Yet I am told never mind because this absolute intrusion into and assault on my constitutional rights as a citizen of this country is necessary to fight terrorism. Yet a non-citizen from or coming back into our country from a country we know radicalizes terrorists who would kill us and seek to radically change our way of life is “detained” and we are supposed to be beside ourselves with guilt and anger at that person’s treatment. My response is “where is your outrage at the daily treatment of millions of Americans across this country?” Absent that or because of that your true agenda is obvious. So consider this: I frankly do not give a shit that any non-citizen or citizen for that matter of our country is detained because our law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion that the person wants to kill us because they are coming from a location identified as one where non-citizens or even citizens of our country are radicalized to kill us.

Much like the Palestinian paraded his dead child out for the cameras and claimed he was shot by Israelis, when, in fact, he was shot by warring factions within the Stinkies themselves.
The one think you can take to the bank when it comes to getting your “news” from the Malfeasant Media, it’s going to be spun in such a way that benefits Progressives and hurts everyone else not “Left” enough.

Folks with Borderline Personality Disorder use weaponized empathy with devastating effectiveness, often exploiting liberal/identity politics when possible. BPD is very difficult to treat, and often the best you can do is marginalize them to reduce the harm these folks do to themselves and others. We have a nation full of folks with Borderline Political Disorder. Using logic will do nothing to affect them. But how can we marginalize such a huge swath of the population?

I tell everybody that hits me up for their cause or wants me to agree, I am glad they have a cause and may it do well. Then I go.
The problem with many people is Deeds Become Greed, the cause is no longer the cause it is the personal satisfaction. That is bad.

Weaponized empathy is generally in the service of a smoke and mirrors con. By that I mean a program that cannot deliver on its promises with any budget that can sustainably be supplied. So a huge amount of money is put in at the beginning, good results are achieved, and then a year or two in, the money starts to melt away and the residue left over yields the usual socialist results.

This continues to work because we have not integrated the computer into our national government oversight habits. Require that each government program lay out what it does, what measure of success is valid, and what is the current level of performance being achieved with all of that being automatically put on line so that your computer can pull that data overnight and lay out which programs are succeeding (the flush minority) and which are failing (the large majority) and all of a sudden it becomes clear to everyone that overextension is rampant.

Very true. The media has shown themselves to be inaccurate and deliberately, obviously, predisposed toward the Left. And so now we can’t trust it. Down below, a fellow named merkur was questioning one of the photographs. He had an explanation for it that sounded plausible, though not proven. If the media had been trustworthy up until now, I’d probably accept his explanation. But like the boy who cried wolf, they’ve done it too many times. Too many lies. Too much dishonesty.

Our trust in them is broken. And it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to regain it.

You have a gift for expressing yourself! The instant picture contrast between media-propaganda child Trayvon Martin and real-world teenage thug Trayvon Martin is exactly the right way to do it. I’ve had extensive thoughts along these lines myself over the past thirty years. The leftist vermin never, ever stop trying to buttrape people’s minds with false dichotomies. I’m put in mind of various ways to fight back verbally. I’ll pop out a few quick retorts to leftists:

“Your fake empathy leaves me cold. Also, you’re bothering me. Do you want to go to jail for stalking and harassment?”
“You’re an arrogant idiot. You can take your sneering attitude and shove it hard.”
“I have every bit as much sympathy for your snotty attitude as you have for my liberty and safety — that is to say, none whatsoever. Sod off, swampy!”
“You don’t seem to have a problem with violently terrorizing innocents with your evil leftist crusades. Eat shit and die, vermin.”

If it comes it that, there’s the last resort:

“Are you threatening me with violence? Must I defend my life and safety against you to the gravest extent of the law?”

Genteel courtesy has no place in the vicious culture war against the evil enemy. Only grim determination, crude rudeness and plenty of guns will work. The barely hidden threat of an all-out shooting war is the only language the leftists understand, as we know from the ultimate success of the many years of a Cold War against the communist Soviet Union. We will defeat the enemy within as well.

“The tactic is used for everything from welfare policy, to Social Security disbursement, to immigration and even climate change. Support climate change legislation, or else you want the poor residents of some tropical island to drown. Support Black Lives Matter or else you’re a racist who hates black people.”

This is a variation on the presidential election and some of the more vocal opponents. Remember the Tess Rafferty Aftermath 2016 video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxSei2fVP0c). She as much said, If you voted for Trump, you’re a racist/sexist. If you voted for Bernie/Jill/Gary, unfriend me. What she DIDN’T say was, The only acceptable vote was for my candidate, Hillary; but through a process of elimination, it’s basically the same thing. This is form of political and sociological bullying.

I think George Zimmerman was at least mostly at fault in the Trayvon Martin incident. That being said, I saw it as more of an excessive/use of force issue rather than a race issue. Zimmerman was Hispanic, Martin was black. Zimmerman made some poor judgment calls and is not suited to that line of work.

“Everyone has that one relative who guilt trips everyone else in the family. If you don’t do something he wants, you must want him to suffer. A false choice is presented, either obey or you’re a bad person. No other choices are presented.”

This sounds really familiar. I was dealing with, a real passive aggressive deadbeat (a lefty too, coincidentally). I was yelled at and told to be responsible for them or I was “selfish” and “impatient”. Now I refuse to do anything. Maybe this is similar to how Trump voters felt when they decided to push back and send a message.

Zimmerman was an idiot. But he wasn’t a white supremacist, or even much of a white guy. The media wanted to make it a race crime, when it was really just what happens when two idiots meet each other in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Left has too much compassion for others because they lead safe comfortable lives. Perhaps if they faced genuine physical threat they’d soon learn to care about their own well being before anyone else. They preach violence, we should give them a taste of that bitter fruit.

You’re right, these manipulators ask loaded questions in attempt to push/brainwash/intimidate you into adopting their line of thinking. A simple example would be the question “Do you still beat your wife?” If you sputter and answer “No”, you still look like a fool for you have accepted the premise that you DID AT SOME POINT beat your wife. You have to REJECT THE PREMISE and not allow them to corner you with false choices. “I’ve NEVER hit my wife and I resent your implication that I have!” They are not prepared for that, they are only prepared for the “conversation” to go the way that they anticipated, i.e. with you on your heels. Don’t accept the premise, destroy it. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated.

The answer isn’t to try to rebut their weaponized empathy or call them liars. That’s fighting emotion with logic. It doesn’t work.

The answer is to use weaponized empathy ourselves.

Why can’t the right circulate photos of people raped or killed by illegals or refugees? They exist, but we don’t use them the way the left does. We argue, when we should be showing a photo of a victim and saying “you killed her!”

Why not find a photo or video of a cop who got shot for Black Lives Matter? Or someone on welfare with a big screen TV?

Why not stage photos ourselves the same way they do?

“But that’s not fair! That’s against the rules!” Alinski says make them live by their own rules. These are their rules, we shouldn’t feel bad about it. Fighting with one hand behind your back doesn’t work.

The line to avoid crossing is selling a lie. For instance, pictures of children are used to sell us on mass migration, with a very high percentage of military age men. We’re sold on one thing, and another thing is delivered. Bait and switch tactics.

Soliciting empathy is not always bad. Not always a weapon, if it is used in the service of truth. Case in point: If you show an increase in Swedish rape stats since the migrants came, you can elicit empathy with that. But it is empathy in the service of truth, not lies.

That’s the key. Don’t lie. Tell the truth. Be honest. Then, when they come to tear your stories apart they will be shocked to find that you were speaking honestly. They can’t tear them down, like we can tear down Palestinian acting, or Trayvon the 12 year old.

Is it? Sources I’ve seen say that is Aylan, not Ghalib. I went to check again when I saw your reply, and saw nothing saying the first photo was of Ghalib. There are, however, many posts supporting that the photographers moved Aylan’s body.

Still from Turkish television coverage. Note the position of the body, head against the rock; identical shoes to the first photo in your post, but clearly a different colour t-shirt (and I would judge, an older child). There are other similar photos, slightly harder to find because the Aylan photo was so ubiquitous.

On the topic of whether the body was moved. Honestly? I think the people who are promoting narrative are the cynical, lying assholes. (I don’t think you’re one of them – you’re much more open-minded than that.)

Here’s the problem. You see the Trayvon Martin example from this same post? They did similar with Michael Brown, and a host of other recent tragic events. The media deploys weaponized empathy so often, and with such predictable regularity, that this is a boy who cried wolf situation.

The sources I’ve read on the topic suggest the body was moved. I could give you many links that say the body was moved (you’re probably looking at the same ones now, though IIRC it’s even on the wiki page, for whatever that’s worth). So without overriding evidence that it was NOT moved… I’m inclined to believe them.

Now… Let’s say you’re right, and it wasn’t moved. And some cynical liars know this, and were deliberately spreading a false narrative. Then I would agree that those lying and saying that were the assholes. Because *they* would be using the kid as a political prop.

But either way, the problem remains deploying weaponized empathy to convert people to your narrative. To hijack their own moral sensibilities in the service of a lie. See what I’m getting at?

Is it that you take issue with the dead child being used as a political prop, or that you take issue with the dead child being used as a prop for politics that you don’t agree with?

If you remember, there was quite some debate about whether it was appropriate to use this picture in the media. In the end it was shown partly because these deaths had been (and continue to be) largely invisible.

I wasn’t making an accusation, I was asking a question. I know that you follow people such as Vox Day, who believes that it’s morally permissible to use what he perceives as the enemy’s tools against the enemy. So I was wondering if you shared that moral imperative. No offense was intended.

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 8:17 pm

Regarding accusations of staging, I’m not sure what you object to. We know people – including children – are dying, and dying horribly, both in the Med and in Aleppo. What worries me is that accusations of staging seem to suggest that the real offense here is the staging – and not the dying.

You’re missing the point. Someone who manipulates public opinion this way doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Syrian children. They want more migrants to come to Europe and America. They want this for their own political gain.

They are *using* the Syrians, and other ethnic groups. They don’t care. But more migrants serves their political agenda, so they will agitate for them.

Now, take such political leaders, and offer them a way to make peace in places like Syria. To stop the killing, stop dropping bombs, etc… Why would they take it? War and death give them power to manipulate the narrative. Their interests are better served by prolonging the conflict rather than solving it. You don’t, and shouldn’t, give those people what they want.

As for Vox Day, I am not him, and neither do I agree with him on everything. As to whether or not it is morally permissible to use a weapon if your enemy does, I’d say that generally it is permissible to do that.

But there’s an important caveat to that. See, I don’t mind empathy being deliberately solicited for things that are true. Case in point: in the Trayvon Martin example, if the media had said that it was sad the altercation lead to Trayvon’s death, I’d have agreed with them. Yes, it was very sad. But they went a step further. They tried to play it up as a racial hate crime, to spin Zimmerman as a white guy, and the crime as a white supremacist thing. That was a lie.

Zimmerman may have been an idiot who thought he was being a hero, somebody way out of his depth, and doing dumb shit… but he was not a white supremacist, or even much of a white guy, period. The narrative was bullshit. It was a lie.

You tell the TRUTH about something, you know, that’s good. So I don’t mind empathy being used in order to tell the truth, and present something that happened. I don’t think anybody thought Aylan’s death was a good thing. I mean, I’m half Armenian. My son looks damn similar to a lot of Syrian kids, you know.

But then there was the staging, the manipulation of the photo. And then there was using it to sell everybody on mass migration (and consequences be damned). And it was sold as “let in as many people as possible, or you want more dead kids like him.” It was a false choice. There are many options: end the war. Find a location on land — maybe the Saudis could help — so kids didn’t drown. You know, lots of choices.

But they spun it as “take in refugees now, or else you want dead kids.” And it’s bullshit, man. Total bullshit.

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Why do you think that any of these people don’t give a rat’s ass about Syrian children? The open borders crowd have a clear agenda, but they’re a vanishingly small minority. I don’t see any evidence that there is a coherent and widespread policy position that wants more migrants for the sake of more migrants. I’m not even sure what such a position would be intended to achieve.

Open borders in the West came about because of an interesting problem Far-Left folks had. Take America. FDR came with the New Deal, and that had some Socialism in it. I mean, not full-on Stalinist Communism, mind you. But a little Socialism, just the same.

The Left was very happy with this. They thought they could get Communism to come to America the Fabian way. A little Socialism here, a little bit there. And eventually, we’d come to accept the whole program.

Only, it didn’t work. The Soviet Union sucked, and pretty soon it became obvious that it sucked. And China, North Korea, Vietnam… they were no better.

Well, that didn’t suit the Far Left very much. It was clear white working class folks weren’t going to start the revolution.

That’s when, in the 60s, they hit on population replacement. The Civil Rights era showed the utility of this. Black Communists and Nation of Islam folks showed the Far Left how you could do it. Bring in some folks you can convince to vote the way you want. Throw in some racial angles. Keep them apart, and keep people at odds with one another.

Then you could play the game with the Frankfurt School rules: ethnic and social classes, instead of traditional Marxian economic classes.

So the leaders of the West who desired more power, the kind of absolute authority Communist dictatorship could bring them, wanted as many immigrants as they could possibly get. Provided, of course, the immigrants could be convinced to vote right.

Obama famously cut off Cuban refugee status recently, just before leaving office. Why? Cubans vote Conservative. The Left wants more Mexicans, and less Cubans. So it’s all cynical calculation.

If Syrian migrants suddenly became staunch right-wingers tomorrow, they’d be talking about how evil and terrible Syrians were, and instead of elevating the dead child to the front page, they’d bury it in the back.

Not sure how many of them realize it, but the combination of the two is de facto open borders support.

Democrats, of course, are a slightly higher percentage of the electorate than Republicans. I typically use Sperlings Best Places for that data. Last I looked it was about a 5% difference in favor of Dems.

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 9:28 pm

As you already know from previous discussions, I don’t think your narrative about “communism” holds a lot of water – so take that as read with what follows

Your theory seems especially weird given that people on the actual far left appear to think that the cultural war was won by capitalism, in the form of neoliberalism.

“So the leaders of the West who desired more power” – which leaders? The narrative you describe *might* be applied to New Labour – but they weren’t even socialist.

Here in the states, this started with the Kennedys. Ted Kennedy, in particular, for:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act.

Most Democrats since then have been on board with this. Bush I and Bush II, while not active supporters, per se… were not particularly opposed either. So some Republicans were also tacitly for it.

Reagan, of course, was staunchly opposed, as is Trump.

But the thing to note is that the cultural war was not won by Capitalism — the economic war was.

Neoliberalism is the sort of bizarre hybrid when you get people who want Communist-level micromanagement of a country while, oddly enough, thinking themselves Capitalists. To me, it is gross doublethink.

It’s like the kid protesting Capitalism on his iPhone 6. You know?

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Okay, now you’ve lost me. Neoliberalism is the exact opposite of “people who want Communist-level micromanagement”. Neoliberalism is about gutting the state and replacing it with the market.

If you want illegals to be made legal, or allowed to stay *AND* you don’t support securing the border to prevent more from coming… that is a de facto open border.

On the other hand, if you support securing the border, and then an amnesty for those here… that’s not open borders, because you are closing the door.

Conversely, if you don’t support securing the border, but you do support deporting them when caught, that’s not open borders either, because you kick them out when you find them.

If you do both – the equivalent of leaving the door open, and not telling the people who walk through that door to leave, that’s de facto open borders.

But I’ve no idea if this is the original source the morning show people used or not. It’s just what I could find you on short notice. I generally trust them, because I’ve never caught them in a lie (and they do a lot of the same charity events I do, actually — good folks). The show in question is AM Tampa Bay on 970 WFLA. Feel free to research it yourself, if you like.

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 9:54 pm

The term “neoliberalism” is really clear and consistent from country to country, and from descriptions of the Mont Pelerin Society onwards. It refers to policies that are specifically in favour of reducing government size in favor of market mechanisms.

No… you’ve got it backwards. Bill Clinton was a Keynesian. A “Third Way” type. Not a neoliberal.

I’ll concede that the definition you provided is correct — I won’t dispute that — but you are misapplying it to people who don’t fit the definition you provided. And this is very common. I see it all the time.

Trump may be a neoliberal, though. But Hillary? Not a chance. Trump wants to reduce government interference in business (with the exception of global trade agreements). Hillary wanted to expand government interference in business.

Well, now, if you want to bring politics into it:
That kid was dead because of YOU.
You supported a president who tried to conduct regime change in Syria by supplying weapons and training to SUNNI JIHADISTS. They drove that kid and his family to flee for their lives.
Are you proud of the death and suffering you produced just so you could pose and prance, saying “I voted for an african american, which makes me NOT a racist, and YOU a virulent KKK loving monster!”
LOL!!!

Actually, I’m pretty sure conservatives are more likely to be snookered by bogus charities.

Donating to charity is a fine thing. But again, it’s gotta be in the service of truth. You know how a lot of charities operate? They get grants from various governments, and they gotta use that money for the people they are helping. You know, they can’t felch that too much or the governments won’t be happy.

But, you know, maybe they still want their caviar and first class plane tickets, and all that. They want nice high salaries for the execs — same as any company, really.

So they put out these sad commercials on TV. You know, donate $20/month. They show the sad kids, and the maggots, and the flies, and the bowls of rotten rice. And the suckers, they pay up.

Now that money doesn’t come with any strings attached. If only 10% of it makes it to the people they are supposed to help, it’s no big deal. The execs running the charity, well, they need their money too, right?

This is why the charities I donate to are ones I work with personally. I donate to the 1Voice Foundation. It’s a local charity designed to help kids with terminal cancer in my area. And you know, I donate my time and help out personally. Because I see the kids. And I know where my money is going, and why I’m doing it. And it feels good to do that.

But the further you distance yourself from participation at a personal level, the easier it is to con you. And then you aren’t helping poor kids, or something. You’re lining the pockets of a liar.

I do know how a lot of charities operate. There are a lot of problems in how we do business, but the picture you paint – of only 10% going to the recipients – is close to the exact opposite of what actually happens.

Horror stories like the American Red Cross in Haiti are just that – horror stories. It doesn’t mean that all charities are like that, any more than one corrupt businessman means all businesses are corrupt.

The Clinton Foundation may be the most egregious example of this shit in recent memory.

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm

I’ll definitely give you the Clinton Foundation, but I’d also call them a charity in legal form only. Egregious shit indeed.

My point being, that most of the money that you give to charities for e.g. refugee relief will actually be used to help refugees.

With the Clintons – caveat fucking emptor. I wouldn’t give them a penny.

merkur
on February 1, 2017 at 9:33 pm

Having said that, the Clinton Foundation scored pretty well on the charity ranking scales that groups like Charity Navigator provide. My problem with them is not that they waste money – it’s that they promote a neoliberal capitalist agenda.

In any event, I must be going for today. I’ll try to see if I can prove or disprove your theory on the photo from earlier. Perhaps tomorrow evening. If I can find something that proves your theory on the photo correct, I will remove the photo from this post, or replace it with whatever I find.

So far as I’ve been able to tell, though, the thought that the body was moved continues to appear true. So that will stay until something proves otherwise.

Thanks, but I don’t know why you think Aylan Kurdi’s body was moved. Regardless of whether he was moved, that’s still a picture of a dead child washed up on a beach. That’s not “weaponized empathy” – it’s just a fact.

“Regardless of whether he was moved, that’s still a picture of a dead child washed up on a beach. That’s not “weaponized empathy” – it’s just a fact.”

The dead child is a fact. The use of his photo to promote the influx of millions of migrants into Europe is weaponizing the empathy for the child in the service of someone else’s political agenda. Do you not see the difference?

Really, merkur. Did you even read my post? Do you not comprehend the central point of this, and several other articles you’ve commented on here?

You always come out of the woodwork for this one topic. And I’ve yet to figure out why. You don’t comment on my other musings — only this one. Only the use of weaponized empathy in the service of the pro-migration agenda.

Is someone paying you to do this? Why this one topic? You didn’t even touch on the Trayvon case. Only the Muslim migrant one. Look, I let you post here, and talk to you, because occasionally you deliver factual information and corrections if I make mistake (IIRC you corrected me on the list of Islamic countries who accepted no refugees). And that is good and well. But then you proceed into this circular argument, and ignore the central thesis.

“That’s a dead child over there.” *WE KNOW*. “But.. there’s a dead child!” Yes, we get it. We see his body. We know. Now that you’ve shown him to me… what do you want?

merkur
on February 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Yes, I see the difference, and I understand what you’re trying to say.

My point is that you believe that merely printing the picture of the dead Aylan Kurdi is weaponized empathy. If the picture was not staged, then I assume that you would still call it weaponized empathy. So if it doesn’t affect the point that you’re making, why do you care if it was staged or not?

I come out of the woodwork for this topic because it’s closer to me both personally and professionally than most of what you write about. The only thing I want from you when you see that picture is to discuss what migration policy might be more appropriate to stop more children from drowning. But I understand if you’re not interested in that discussion.

It would still be weaponized empathy, even if not staged. Staging merely makes it more egregious. I am interested in whether or not it was staged based on a purely factual angle, so that I can be more correct in my reporting. That is all. That goes back to the fact that I really loathe liars. If you know a thing is incorrect, and you publish it anyway, you are a liar. Same is you make a mistake, and then refuse to correct it when you notice it.

But that’s separate from what constitutes weaponized empathy. See, my question when I see pictures like this is why do the migrants have to go to the West? And why, having come to the West, are they to remain their indefinitely, rather than going back when things are safe?

Many gulf states have absurd wealth, such that they are in competition for building the world’s tallest buildings as some kind of architectural dick measuring contest. These are people much closer in faith, culture, and ethnicity to the Syrian migrants than the West is.

So why can’t they go there? And then, maybe, those Westerners who want to help can donate time, money, and/or supplies? They wouldn’t have to cross the Med. Hence, no drowning. Problem solved, right?

But notice something about this angle. It makes no reference to the picture. I’m not saying, this is so sad, so we must do option 1 or else. The second you bring the picture into the argument and say “but look at the child! They must go to Europe,” you’ve jumped the shark. It’s no longer a rational argument. It’s an emotional one, where one side is claiming moral superiority by hijacking the empathy of the accused.

merkur
on February 2, 2017 at 6:44 pm

I understand your loathing of liars, although I think that there’s a fairly big difference from staging a photo as against presenting something that is deliberately untrue.

So: migrants don’t have to go to the West. It’s that they’ve made a decision based on a calculation that they have a better chance of access to e.g. jobs, education, health care, etc. Many Syrian refugees, for example, have been stuck in countries where they can’t work, have limited access to health facilities for their families or education provision for their children, etc.

Whether they can remain indefinitely depends on their status in the country where they settle. The status of “temporary protection” is sometimes invoked when there are sudden mass movement. Whether refugee status is continued after e.g. a war comes to an end is usually determined on a case by case basis by the host government.

Closeness of culture is not usually a determinant in where to resettle refugees, although it has been taken into account in some cases. I also think you over-estimate the closeness of Syrians to e.g. Saudis – they do not have much in common – and given that Saudi Arabia is a party to the Syrian conflict, resettlement to Saudi would be a policy no-no.

With regards to the picture of Aylan Kurdi: I agree that there is a moral argument, because a purely “rational” argument can’t give us the answer we want. Rational argument can only be applied when you know what your goals are, and in this case it’s a moral goal: to relieve suffering. I don’t think it’s possible to discuss this issue without bringing morality into it.

The West may be better for them (then again, it may not. See: current resurgence of nationalism). But things are not better for the West if they come in.

If the problem is keeping Syrian kids from dying, the Saudi solution is as good as the European one. Better, perhaps, in that they don’t have to go as far, or over the sea.

But now you bring in a second angle. That they want better/more jobs, better healthcare, etc… and so on. Okay then. Let’s talk about convincing Islamic governments that emulating the West is a good idea.

Why does that mean that residents of every hell hole on Earth have an unalienable right to come to the West? Consider… would the things you appear to like about the West, the jobs, the peace, the healthcare… would they continue to exist if you took the population of Syria and deposited it into, say, Germany?

And why must that be *my* problem? Kids die in Somalia every day. Should the entire population of Somalia thus move to America?

No, no. It doesn’t work that way. And it serves the interests of leaders who want to exploit the newcomers for their own wealth and political gain. I’ll help folks, but not to the extent of risking my country in the balance. Why? Because I, too, have a son. And I don’t want to see what happened to Aylan happen to my child. I don’t want the conflicts of the Middle East imported onto my doorstep.

And whatever empathy I may have for kids thousands of miles away, the empathy I have for my own flesh-and-blood outweighs that by orders of magnitude.

You will find that many in the West are with me on this matter. They will help with humanitarian aid, supplies, food, and otherwise. They may even help negotiate treaties for their safe passage into nearby countries, with greater cultural and religious affinity. Instead of fighting for all this other stuff, that doesn’t solve the immediate problem (and may exacerbate it)… why not accept that help, and save some kids? Why push for them to go to the West in such large numbers? Especially when such force, misused, is *already* producing backlash?

merkur
on February 2, 2017 at 8:33 pm

I agree that things might not be better for the West – as I wrote to triple sphinctered wombat, I don’t think we can talk about migration without taking into account the impact on the social fabric of both sending and receiving countries.

You say that for the Saudi solution, “they don’t have to go as far, or over the sea”. In fact they would have to go further, since the distance between Aleppo and Riyadh is 500km more than the distance between Aleppo and Lesvos, and they would have to go through a desert – as good as a sea.

Regarding the arguments for giving “residents of every hell hole on Earth have an unalienable right to come to the West” – I don’t think there are many people making that argument, and I’m definitely not. I also think this conflates the problem of refugees and migrants, which are separate policy issues.

Why is this your problem? It’s your problem in the sense that this is happening, and states needs to have policies, and it’s reasonably clear that “close the borders” as a policy is problematic, both in terms of lives lost and eroding values. We need better policies, and you’re a part of that debate.

I don’t see anybody fighting for open borders, except for some isolated voices on the web and a couple of development economists. Again, it helps to separate out the refugee and migrant crises – although they are linked in the Med, they are separate dynamics that require separate responses.

Humanitarian aid is already being supplied. Third country resettlement is already being implemented. The majority of refugees globally, and particularly from Syria, are already in neighbouring countries. None of that has stopped the outflow of refugees, so clearly it is insufficient.

Why would they have to go to Riyadh, specifically? They need to leave the conflict zone, not go on a vacation. Anywhere in Saudi Arabia that could be well-supplied would be good for that purpose.

That it’s happening is not an argument for why it is my problem. And if lives can be saved without them coming here, into my country, there isn’t even a moral argument for sending them here.

Refugees and migrants are linked issues, not precisely identical, but definitely linked.

People are fighting for open borders everywhere, sir. Yes, yes, they hide behind technicalities and say “oh, I’m not for open borders” but if you cannot have border control because somebody feels bad about it, and you cannot deport people because again, someone feels bad, then you have de facto open borders.

Several Middle Eastern countries have done very little about Syrian refugees. I haven’t looked at the stats since my last article, so I’m unsure if it has changed lately, but back then, the Saudis had taken in *zero*. Same with many of the wealthy gulf states.

Yes, some other local countries have done more. Good on them. But some haven’t done shit. If Canada was having a Civil War right now (lol), then would it not be fair to look to the US to help the Canadians before looking to, say, China?

I mean, we have migrants and refugees who get sent to places like Australia, fer crissakes. It’s ridiculous.

As for the separation between migrants and refugees, I see less of it than you do. Because in the end, folks will use some weaponized empathy to ensure the refugees can stay permanently, if they want. It would be inhumane to send them back to a bombed-out dump, right?

See what I mean? Individually, some of your points have merit. But when you look at the forest, instead of the trees, you see a massive wave of Islamic migration into the West… and tensions and backlash in the West building tremendously. Dark times are on the horizon if this isn’t stopped — and stopped SOON.

You, sir, may actually be arguing for MORE dead kids. For if the West starts fighting amongst themselves again, over this issue, many more of your Syrians will be caught in the crossfire.

merkur
on February 3, 2017 at 2:05 pm

I was giving Riyadh as an example, since you you were trying to argue that “they don’t have to go as far”.

Most refugees start by leaving a conflict zone. The problem is that in most of the countries surrounding Syria, their life opportunities are extremely limited in terms of jobs, education, health.

It’s neither desirable or practical to keep refugees sitting in camps indefinitely – it costs a lot of money, it destroys refugee communities, and frequently has disastrous impacts on local economy and environment. Refugees in towns and cities do far better, but often have to work illegally – which means dangerous jobs, low pay and no security. Understandably these refugees look for more options.

There are two options: full integration into the host country, or third country resettlement. Given the scale of the Syrian crisis, integrating all refugees into e.g. Jordan is not going to be possible, which means third country resettlement. If neither of these options are available, then refugees will make their own options – which is why we see so many crossing into Europe. You say that this isn’t your problem, but you certainly seem to think it’s your problem as you post about it frequently.

I work in this field, and I’m pretty certain that people are not fighting for “open borders everywhere”. More borders have become closed, more walls have been built, more options have been closed for refugees. You keep saying that people are fighting for open borders everywhere, but the evidence seems pretty fucking thin on the ground – and I say this as somebody who knows actual open border activists whose main complaint is that they have no political or popular support.

I’m sure you follow some shit-talkers on twitter, and there are regularly articles on Breitbart claiming that so-and-so is for open borders. I’ll believe that if I ever see anybody actually pursuing policies that look like open borders. Here’s what counts as an “open borders” policy: open borders. Anything else and you’re just being mislead by people who think you’re stupid. And I don’t think you’re stupid.

“There are two options: full integration into the host country, or third country resettlement.”

No. Why does their plight mean they must come to my country? Absolutely not. My country’s first priority is my country.

“You say that this isn’t your problem, but you certainly seem to think it’s your problem as you post about it frequently.”

When my country cannot secure its own borders, you make it my problem. The correct language is “it shouldn’t be my problem.”

“I work in this field, and I’m pretty certain that people are not fighting for ‘open borders everywhere'”

You’re hardly an unbiased source of information on this. Have you been watching the anti-Trump rallies? The signs often say things like “no wall, love Trumps hate, refugees welcome!”

The media talking heads take offense even at the use of the term “undocumented immigrant.” They’ve come up with a whole new set of euphemisms. Democrats had plenty of opportunities to secure the border if they wanted to, and didn’t even make the attempt.

No, what you’re doing is a sort of bait-and-switch game. You say you’re not for open borders, but everything you argue for goes toward open borders. You admit that migrants and refugees aren’t good for the West, yet you come up with any excuse for them to come to the West.

The only thing you’re right about in that screed you just posted is that more borders have become closed, and more walls have been built, because finally the open borders folks are starting to lose to a wave of populism. It’s a backlash, I might add, that folks like yourself have contributed to. You are losing popular support now, and I see that as a very good thing.

Of course, that’s why we have Democrats burning shit in the streets, because they are pissed that their mandate has been withdrawn from them.

You can take your strawman about Breitbart, and shove it, sir. I don’t trust anybody in the media as far as I can throw them, and I do believe that’s been made abundantly clear over the years here. In case you missed it, however, I’ll repeat it again: I don’t fucking trust any of them, and I’ve pretty damn good reasons not to. If I catch you in a lie, I’ll never trust you again. That goes double for the media.

Here’s what counts as open borders: arguing against securing the border, arguing against deporting those who freely walk across it, and allowing an unspecified and massive number of migrants (legal and illegal) to cross it at their will. You can call it “purple magic smoke” and it doesn’t matter. It is de facto open borders, and one of the largest movements of people in the history of human civilization. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

You fight for them to come to the West, and I’m thinking your presence here is a sign I’m doing something right. It’s a sign that the message is getting out.

One last analogy for you, sir, and they we are done for the time being (I’ve other articles to write and I’ve wasted enough time on this as it is). You see a homeless man on the street, and you offer him some food. Maybe you do what that cop did a while back, and give him some good shoes. Direct him to a homeless shelter down the street where he can sleep. All well and good, right? Must you invite him into your house, though? You don’t know him. You’ve no reason to trust him around your family. Now, imagine you do anyway, because for whatever reason, the risk is worth it to you. Now, you see another homeless man. Should he come in, too? After all, he’s just as bad off as the other guy. Should you just leave your door open, and let anybody into your home without even checking them, or knowing who they are? And then, let’s say some of those folks start complaining. You get too much of the good food. You have the nicer bedroom. They want those things too. You’re too privileged, dontcha know. So you pay extra to give them better food and accommodations. Your family, meanwhile, has to make do with less. After all, the homeless are suffering, right? Eventually, these folks basically own your house and everything in it, and your life is spent caring for them instead of family.

This is how all these endlessly-moralizing folks are operating today. They’ve more demands. Better jobs, better places to live, more welfare. Meanwhile, the door is left open, and more people come in whenever they want. The existing citizenry is pushed aside to make room for them, and to pay for them. America is in massive debt presently. Yet you expect us to do more. Always more. As if our very purpose is to care for the entire world, no matter how little they care for themselves.

No. This is lunacy. It is someone who has gone mad from excessive deployment of this weapon – a weapon, I should that, that even you understand. Otherwise you wouldn’t debate me on it so vociferously.

It’s like the BLM supporters who demand that white guys should give up their homes, cars, and jobs… and give those things to blacks, because that is the only way they can be good allies.

Fuck that.

I see a homeless guy on the street, maybe I help him a little. Some change in my pocket. A hearty sandwich. Maybe sometime I volunteer at the local homeless shelter or something.

But my house is my house, and your suffering is not a license to come into it at your will.

You be careful, merkur. I know folks think the West is like the golden goose, and it can be milked for eggs. But you’re going to kill it, if you keep doing this. And you won’t like the evil that grows in its place.

merkur
on February 3, 2017 at 2:25 pm

“But when you look at the forest, instead of the trees, you see a massive wave of Islamic migration into the West”

The statistics don’t support this argument. I am however extremely sympathetic to the sense amongst Europeans that the current wave of migration may have cultural impacts that are being overlooked by political elites. I believe that this is a discussion that we need to have, but it has to be based in reality, surely?

And no, I’m not arguing for more dead Syrian kids. That argument makes no sense at all.

Millions of Muslims have come into the West in the last *couple years*. MILLIONS. Millions, merkur. Not thousands. If that doesn’t count as a massive migration, I don’t know what does.

If you consider that prior to the World Wars, there were very few Muslims in the West at all… and now there are well over 15 million in Europe alone…

You aren’t stupid. So you have a choice here. Retract that claim, and let it pass. We all make mistakes. I have in the past, and you have called me out on a couple. It happens. Or continue with it, and I will consider you a liar.

Your choice.

merkur
on February 3, 2017 at 3:28 pm

“Millions of Muslims have come into the West in the last *couple years*… If that doesn’t count as a massive migration, I don’t know what does.”

Absolute numbers are often not very useful. Let’s say your tax bill this year was $100,000 – that’s a massive tax bill, right? Yet if you earn $1,000,000,000 a year, that tax bill isn’t even worth wiping your nose with. So: relative numbers are more useful.

If by “the West” you mean (broadly) the European Union, then estimated total population 2016 was 510 million. Let’s say that around 2 million migrants entering the EU from 2014-2015, and let’s say they were all Muslims (they weren’t, but I’m being charitable).

That means that the population of the EU increased by 0.39%. Do you think that’s a masssive migration?

I’m not lying. The migrant crisis looks massive because it’s plastered across the media, and it seems terrible because the media you consume tell you it’s terrible. This is why I prefer to look at the numbers myself rather than trust what other people tell me.

Millions is massive. $100,000 is a lot of money. And before you think THAT is a relativistic argument, consider that I was reading Trump’s Art of the Deal the other day… and as a billionaire he was still concerned about $20,000. Playing games with moral relativism is bullshit.

Sorry, 2 million people is a lot of people. And you’re not wiggling your way out of that. Also, .4% per year is a lot, especially if the influx remains consistent. The Muslim population of Europe would double in ten years at that rate.

You are saying millions are not a lot. That’s bullshit.

Edit: and you know, your way of thinking about money is precisely why governments waste so much cash. “Oh, $100,000 is not a lot of money. We can blow it on dumb shit, and it’s okay.” No, it’s a lot of money. And if you keep doing that, it’s going to add up to a much greater chunk of money. 50 bureaucrats each thinking $100k is chump change… well, now you’re at $5 million. Still not a lot? $100k a year, no big deal, right? Except if you do it for a decade, you’re at a million. Still chump change? Thinking of everything in explicitly relative terms is a fast way to lose money. I’m a businessman, and if I thought that way, I’d be flat broke.

merkur
on February 3, 2017 at 4:35 pm

As with previous discussions, we appear to see the world completely differently, and so communication breaks down.

At no point have I argued for open borders, or anything that you say define open borders. In fact I’ve explicitly said that I favour border control.

I agree that 2 million sounds massive. Humans are really bad at big numbers. But if you think 0.4% is also “massive”, we can’t really get any further.

You favor border control, yet argue for the importation of millions, and decry border security measures that might actually work.

You agree that 2 million sounds massive (because it is, you know), but then try to hide behind “it’s only .4% per year.” Well, in ten years, that’s 4%. In a century, that’s 40%. That’s demographic change more rapid than what produced the fall of Rome. Humans are bad at numbers, yes. That’s why many fall for your spin.

You’re very good at spin. I’ll give you that. Very good. But it’s spin. You shift from the relative to the absolute, and back to the relative again, based on how it suits your argument. It’s a rhetorical trick I’m no longer interested in entertaining.

“If you want illegals to be made legal, or allowed to stay *AND* you don’t support securing the border to prevent more from coming… that is a de facto open border.”

A lack of support for the wall proposed by Donald Trump is *not* the same as not supporting a secure border: one might simply think that the wall isn’t feasible, or won’t be cost-effective, or won’t be effective full stop; and that there are better ways to secure the border.

Similarly, support for a legal path for illegal immigrants *who are currently in the country* – which appears to be the exact wording – is *not* the same as wanting an open border. I’m not sure how you interpret it that way.

Dear triple sphinctered wombat – I’m not an open borders advocate. I favor a controlled scheme that ensures that all three stakeholders get maximum benefit from the migration. I think that migration is one of the most effective tools we have for poverty alleviation, but I don’t think we can talk about that without taking into account the impact on the social fabric of both sending and receiving countries. What do you believe is the best approach?

Dear Merkur,
Immigrants are not stakeholders. I don’t give a hoot about whatever problems they have in their countries. Those are THEIR problems to solve, not mine. The only people who should be permitted to emigrate to America are those who bring valuable skills so that america will benefit by their presence; they also must be people who genuinely want to embrace the American dream.
If you, as an individual, are concerned about the welfare of various potential refugee groups because of problems in their home countries, you are free to either contribute to or directly work for charity organizations that concern themselves with such matters and who are over THERE trying to help those people. Beyond that, America has no existential responsibility to help, succor or otherwise support such people. Simple fact.
Don’t like it? Work with Switzerland, Japan, Korea, Taiwan or China to get THEM to help out refugees, either by foreign aid/assistance or opening their own borders to immigrants. Japan’s population is tanking; undoubtedly they would benefit from having fresh blood and hands eager to contribute in their society.
My family on both sides are DIRECT immigrants. They came to America ready to contribute and integrate, and America actually needed them rather badly then. Now? America CANNOT support such levels of immigration.
Remember: if you don’t like my opinion, you can shame me by contributing to or working for Greenpeace, Medecins sans Frontieres, the Red Cross and another half dozen other organizations. Go ahead. Make me look bad.

Dear Merkur,
America used to be able to support high levels of immigration because they could offer bountiful opportunity to immigrants. That’s why my mom came and that’s why my dad’s family came over. They had a chance to break out of the traditionalist societies in which they were trapped and seek out a new beginning for themselves and their families.
THis situation no longer exists because America is no longer the industrial Titan it used to be. With lots of manufacturing jobs available, people with no skills could learn them if they had the motivation to work. Also, it would break them of their mindset instilled in them by traditionalist societies where the Rule of Man triumphs and condition them to understand and thrive in a world of the rule of Law and individual achievement.
If America reindustrializes, it will go back to the days when immigrants were actively and energetically RECRUITED to come over and join the bonanza. Until that happens, though, we won’t be ready – especially now, with workforce participation historically low and job opportunities so poor.

Kimberly moses: Jeremiah 17:9 – The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Genesis 3:4 – And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. / The democrats and the problem of the world described in two short sentences.

It should be noted as well that the phenomenon should more properly be called “weaponized fake empathy” because it’s nothing like real empathy. Real empathy is gentle and strong, as exemplified by a quiet multitude of conservatives who pay heavy taxes to support the highly politicized social programs demanded by leftists and then on top of that donate substantial amounts of what’s left of their own money to genuine charities in addition to contributing their own precious time to worthwhile causes that truly help unfortunates such as sick children. Leftists, by contrast, tend strongly to arrogantly signal their supposed “virtue” to other scowling leftists by violently rioting and marching around in support of ridiculous causes like the supposed “right” to free, taxpayer-supported contraception.

Leftists demonstrably exhibit far lower rates of charitable giving than conservatives and other decent people who value the act of genuinely and humbly helping the poor and the sick. Leftists are rank hypocrites, strutting thugs who adore looting other people’s money for their own vainglorious, contemptible purposes. Fake empathy leads to nothing but violent tyranny. Leftists are literally a festering disease on the face of the world.

Probably could be. A list of weaponized empathy incidents could fill volumes. I was just thinking the other day of the anti-Trump video that had a bunch of Mexican kids flipping him off. That was a bizarre instance of this phenomenon.

Good timing here for me. I’m having a dustup with my younger liberal brother and his wife, and it devolved into just this issue (over those war pictures of the Syrian women and children, in fact.) Your description of the weaponized empathy tactic matches their approach point for point. Well done.

I would like to add another way of fighting this off.
I am against Muslim immigrants not because of the jihadis but because a great many support the jihadis but don’t do anything other than breed children or give money.
The way to fight this is
1) show the bloody results
2) give money to Prohect Veritas or other groups that infiltrate and show us what their opinions are from the inside
3) show what jihadis are saying online
And this is very important:
4) when Democrats attack fight back by showing the incredibly rich houses with FENCES and guards that they live in…they are not affected by their own policies

“Have you been watching the anti-Trump rallies? The signs often say things like “no wall, love Trumps hate, refugees welcome!””

This is what I mean about not trusting my gut. I’ve seen those signs, but I don’t think a couple of protest signs on loop in the media represents a massive constituency for the complete removal of national borders.

I don’t even think any of those phrases mean open borders: as I’ve pointed out “no wall” might simply mean you don’t think it’s cost-effective, not that you want “open borders”. But you interpret it completely differently, for reasons I have no idea about.

So, sure. A couple of people at an airport with a sign. 0.4% is a “massive” amount. More Syrians will die in a civil war in Europe than have died in Syria. I begin to think that you live in a fantasy world, but you probably think the same of me.

If such protests were attended by a few kooks, I’d agree with you. When they are attended by hundreds of thousands, all over the country (you know, I’m not quite sure how many, but the Left has made it a point to tell me the protesters outnumbered Trump’s inaugural crowd)… well, that’s a different story.

Consider, also, that this was a campaign issue of Hillary. No wall. No border security changes. Amnesty for illegals, or undocumented immigrants, or whatever the buzzword of the day is. And, again, they made it a point to tell me over and over again that Hillary had more popular votes than Trump.

No, it is you who can’t see the forest from the trees, sir. Maybe that is because, as you say, you are not an America, and so you don’t understand it. You don’t see it for yourself. I see it. Hell, I saw on my way back from a jobsite the other day. They’ve had quite a few in my city.

No, there are a lot of them. Perhaps not a majority — not with the backlash against it these days, but a lot nonetheless. And not a “couple at the airport with a sign”. I saw well over a thousand in Tampa with my own eyes, and there were supposedly many more than that at USF the other day. I didn’t go there for obvious reasons. And this is a city that’s not particularly liberal.

Your sentence “THis situation no longer exists because America is no longer the industrial Titan it used to be” reminds me of the parable of union leader Walter Reuther being shown through the Ford Motor plant in Cleveland. A company official points to some new machines and asks Reuther: “How are you going to collect union dues from these guys?” Reuther replies: “How are you going to get them to buy Fords?”

I mean this on a couple of levels – the relation between capital and labour, the impact of automation, patterns of consumption – but mainly I mean to suggest that your assumptions about how economies work might not be entirely accurate.

The ultimate tool of the sociopath. What’s frustrating is this tactic will ONLY EVER work on those who genuinely have empathy who don’t want to be viewed or view themselves as being non-empathetic. It’s very similar to the tactic of race-baiting — nobody who’s actually racist is going to care about being called racist. Once those on the receiving end have ascribed these empathetic fallacies with morality it’s all over. They will repeat the fallacy and continue the cycle.

The Democrats have this “enemies list” — denominated in epithets and insults aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Terrorist!” and you can be a “Dictator” and you can be a “Hostage-taker!” and you can “Wear a tinfoil hat!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” — a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Wacko!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” and you can be “Uneducated” and you can be an “Extremist!”

You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be “Mentally Ill” and you can be “Deranged!” and you can be a “Flake!” and you can be “Sexist!” and you can be a “Warmonger!” and you can be “Unenlightened!” and you can be a “FatCat!” and you can be a “Greedy!” member of the productive class, and you can be a “Nazi!” and you can be a “Fascist!” — although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Nazi!” or “Fascist!” than the usual Democrat propagandist — either official, or self-appointed.

Lies, after all, are the heart and soul and the sword and shield of the Democrat party — and of all other left-wing trash.

So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Democrats’ enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech.

Insist on all these good things — and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum — by The Friends of All Mankind — by a mob of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, pill-popping, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian hoodlums, thugs and gangsters, by their pickpockets and pecksniffs, by their spies, spooks, sneaks and snoops, by their bumsniffers and peckercheckers who seek to silence their critics — by their defenders in the fascist, Democrat-captured media — Sniffy, Snippy, Snotty, and Snooty, by their Mikhail Suslovs, their Josef Goebbels, and their Leni Riefenstahls, by their principal attorneys, Manny, Moe and Jack, Rooty, Tooty, Fresh and Frooty, Brutish, Nasty and Short, Snap, Crackle, and Pop — by the freakshow — by the bloody zoo — by the Star-Wars-bar-scene Democrat party, in other words.

We are ruled by their armed force and by fraud. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction. Destroy them.

With apologies to the Kingston Trio and to Thomas Paine, these are the times that try men’s souls.

In the course of our nation’s history, the American people have rallied bravely, whenever the Rights of Man have been threatened.

Today a new crisis has arisen — the launch of OhBummerCare — a poisonous gift from Barak Bait-And-Switch OhBummer and his confederacy of schmucks. And where are the Republicans?

They are dithering. They are candles in the wind. They flicker in one direction, and then another — and there are less kind observations now afoot, across the fruited plain.

The Republicans cannot find their bums, with both hands and a flashlight.

They keep their cojones locked in a bank vault — although if they were valuable to Republicans, you’d think that they’d take them out for a spin, once in awhile, now wouldn’t you?

When asked how best to destroy the Soviet communist dictatorship, novelist and Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn replied, “Don’t lie.” The corollary of that injunction is, “Tell the truth.”

You can keep your plan and your doctor if you want to? You’ll save on average $2,500 per year in premiums?

Any such fraud in private industry would land the perpetrator in prison — and good riddance to him, too. But OhBummer is armed and dangerous.

This is a gangster government, of Barak Bait-And-Switch OhBummer, and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew.

This is a dictatorship. If Republicans fail to smite it a mighty blow, then they are cowardly and worthless.

Did I leave anything out? For what do we need the Republicans, if they will not fight?

For now, just fund everything except OhBummerCare and let the Democrats shut down the government.

It does not matter that the fascist Democrat-captured media will lie and blame the Republicans.

The Democrats always lie. Lies, after all, are the heart and soul and the sword and shield of the Democrat party.

To the Senate or House Republican I say this. “Be a man. Drive a wooden stake through the heart of OhBummerCare.

“The vast majority of the American people do not want OhBummerCare — so be a Happy Warrior — and kill it.”

I see “white privilege,” “white guilt,” and “latent racism” as phony-baloney concepts cooked-up by nonwhite racists and by their white toadies and sycophants — in an attempt to make whites feel guilty for being white.

After all, it’s easier to rob someone if first you can make them feel guilty — and that’s the whole point of the fake charges of “White privilege!” and “Racism!” whenever a white person disagrees with or criticizes a nonwhite person.

And by the way, the routine substitution of the word “privilege” for the word “rights” is a clear flag for the fascist Democrats’ planted axiom that GOVERNMENT will decide what you can and cannot do — thus signifying the death of liberty in America.

But back to the IslamoFascist Democrats’ war against white people.

If you’re not a racist and someone calls you a racist or suggests or hints or implies or insinuates that you’re a racist, then just pull out your gun and kill them.

Shoot them dead where they stand, for the filthy, vicious insult and lie.

And the crime of that lie, the crime of that insult, is all the worse when spewed from the mouth of a government official.

Make no exceptions and no distinction between government and non-government liars who call you a racist or suggest or hint or imply or insinuate that you’re a racist — make it a death sentence for anyone who calls you a racist.

This, of course, will destroy the Democrat party, whose adherents are afflicted with a form of Tourette syndrome — every time the malady strikes them, they spasmodically spit out the cursed “Racist!” lie and twist their heads around 360 degrees. Kill them. Kill them all.

The purpose of the “Racist!” lie is to intimidate and censor and bully you into silence — to shut you up. Don’t let them do it! KILL THEM FOR IT. The only good censor, like the only good dictator, is a dead one. ~:<)

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism — by vote. It is merely the difference between murder, and suicide.”

— Ayn Rand

What the USA needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary!

And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!

But the American Democrats believe in “statism” — not “liberalism.”

Strip them naked of their “liberal” camouflage and behold their ugliness.

They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology —- we say “the government” here in the USA —- rather than “the state.” And that’s a dangerous problem.

Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism [National Socialism], socialism, “democratic” socialism, “social democracy,” fascism, communism, progressivism, and welfare statism —- these last two are mixtures of fascism and socialism.

Note that these statists are all joined-at-the-hip and on-the-same-page in their common contempt, enmity, and disdain for human rights.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government —- it is a constabulary —- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction.

What “human rights?”

I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

A slave is owned by someone other than himself — but a free man owns himself.

The first article of private property is “the self” — and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights.

These rights —- The Rights of Man —- are the gift of nature or of nature’s god —- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words.

Observe the connection between “liberty” and “liberalism.” The words “liberal” and “liberalism” were hijacked by the Democrats, socialists, progressives, and fascists, long ago —- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.

“Liberalism” requires the defense and promotion of “individual liberty” — and today’s fake “liberals” are busily and maliciously destroying it.

It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners —- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.

Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity!

Declare yourselves to be “liberals,” then —- and kick over the bloody coffee tables — and overthrow and trounce the Democrats — now and forever! Destroy them!

It’s a simple ruse — krazy-glueing “democratic” in front of the word “socialism” — like krazy-glueing “social” in front of the word “justice.”

Both of these tricks are intended to deceive the intellectually lazy — in the former case to award socialism with a figleaf to dress-up the socialist bullshit a little — and in the latter case to destroy the concept of pure, stone-cold justice by reversing it into “charity” [injustice].

The enemies of pure, laissez-faire capitalism — a politico-economic model which has never been tried — are adept at laying the shortcomings of government policy [statism] at the feet of capitalism.

Their principal motivation — aside from using the government as an instrument for theft — is envy — an especially nasty kind of mental illness. But social class resentment and the redistribution [theft] of wealth are poisonous to good government and national prosperity.

And the more frequent, abject and complete the failure of their statist policies, the more urgently these enemies of individual liberty demand more of the same.

But Austrian School [capitalist] economist Murray Rothbard argued that if our goal is the Benthamite “greatest good for the greatest number,” then it is necessary to adopt laissez-faire capitalism.

Is it true that there are unequal success rates among human beings — and therefore unequal rewards in the free market? Sure!

My body mechanic [my doctor] and my auto mechanic both make more money than I do — but of course I would not recommend that you hire me to remove your appendix or fix your car — unless you’re pretty much tired of living. I’m pretty bad with the goddam violin, too.

The market rightly rewards them better than it rewards me for their kind of work — pero asi es la vida.

“Empathy” or “sympathy” are two relatively low priority considerations of governing. These factors are useful in furthering a narrative; but not much more. “Liberty” and “equality” have dominated governance for the past two hundred plus years … and what really astounds is that “equality” (the guiding principle of socialism) is yet to be tossed with socialism onto history’s trash heap.

“Weaponized empathy.” Nice term. And in addition to the existence of unstated choices the author points out, we have the empath’s unmentioned sins. For instance, the Left never objects to the fact that states require a minimum residency period, typically 30 days, before one can vote, even though it bars those who move to a new state the October before an election. Hundreds of thousands are disenfranchised every cycle by having recently moved. The reason the Left’s kosher with it: Affluent whites move long-distance more often than blacks or the poor.

Categories

Categories

Dystopic

I'm a DJ, developer, amateur historian, would-be pundit, and general pain in the ass. I still cannot decide on the wisdom of the Oxford Comma. These are my observations on a civilization in decline, a political system on the verge of collapse, and a people asleep at the wheel as the car turns toward the jersey barrier.